Dingo Deans’ Wallabies Stats (Pt 3)
By The Crowd, 26 Jul 2012 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, robbie deans, Rugby Union, wallabies
196 Have your say
Related coverage
In part three of Dingo Dean’s Wallaby stats, I’d like to continue the focus on Wallaby try scoring under Deans, specifically against our main rivals New Zealand and South Africa.
After all, according to the IRB 2011 Rugby World Cup Statistical Review and Match Analysis, most points in Test matches still come from tries: 74% of all points at the 2011 Rugby World Cup came from tries and their conversions.
Now we established in part two that since 2007, Deans’ Wallabies have the second best try scoring rate of the top tier nations. It was also discussed in part one that under Deans the Wallabies have had their most successful period against the Springboks in their history.
These two statistics go hand in hand.
Since Deans took over we have averaged an amazing 2.6 tries per match against South Africa.
To put this figure into perspective it is substantially higher than the 1.8 tries Australia averages overall against South Africa. It is also much higher than the 2.2 tries we have averaged against them since their return from the rugby wilderness.
What is probably most impressive is that this current try-scoring rate under Deans is higher than any other side including the mighty All Blacks. They only managed an average of 2.5 tries against the Springboks in the same period. We’ll take that as a 0.1 win to the good guys!
Going back to part one for a moment though, it was noted that Deans’ win ratio against the All Blacks is far too low.
We should know that this lack of success against New Zealand hides that our try-scoring propensity against them has also actually increased since Deans took over (in comparison to the four year period preceding his). Most impressively, this has been during a period where we have seen try scoring across the board decrease rapidly.
Yet under Deans, the average tries scored against the All Blacks has gone back up to the healthy average of 1.8 tries per match: in the 2004-07 period, it had dropped down to 1.5 tries per game.
1.8 tries per match doesn’t sound like much, so to help put this figure into perspective we should note that this is higher than the overall Wallaby average of 1.6 tries per match against the All Blacks.
And if we continue to compare Deans’ average of 1.8 tries against the All Blacks with specific Wallaby periods, we see that again he is doing comparatively well.
For instance in the 1984-87 period, it was a mere 1.3 tries per match against out trans-Tasman rivals.
Even in the Ella led ‘golden’ period of 1980-84 we could only manage the same 1.8 tries per match against the All Blacks. It was also 1.8 in the 1996-1999 period against them.
But no period in the past thirty odd years was it as low as the 1988-91 period where the rate was a paltry 1.2 tries per match. Perhaps Bob Dwyer needs to rethink some of his criticisms of how the current Wallabies play because, although in the 1992-95 period it rose to 1.7 tries per match, that is still less than the Deans era.
The only time that it seems a Wallaby team was scoring more tries against New Zealand than Deans’ Wallabies, was in the 2000-2003 period. Here we saw an average of 2.0 tries per match.
The extra 0.2 tries per game might not seem much but it was enough to accommodate our most successful period against New Zealand and our highest ever win ratio of 56% in a four-year period. Clearly we need to be able to average at least two tries per match against the All Blacks!
Regardless, Deans deserves credit for the fact that no other major Test nation has managed as many tries on average against the All Blacks since 2007. The next best of the countries that have played them on multiple occasions since then, after Australia, is France who had managed 1.4 tries.
But for mine the most telling statistic is that in comparison, during the same four-year period, South Africa have only managed to average 1.1 tries against the All Black’s, compared with Deans’ 1.8.
So although Deans’ win ratio against the All Blacks is low, we are scoring a relatively healthy amount of tries against them.
It is also worth noting that Deans Wallabies average 2.3 tries per match against France and the Home Nations. This is not a great return and clearly this average has suffered by not having put away Scotland on two occasions.
But no one can take away the fact that of the top tier nations, Australia tops the separate try scoring averages against both New Zealand and South Africa respectively, during the current Robbie Deans’ era.
Roarers, what are your thoughts on the Wallaby try-scoring rate against these two sides under Robbie Deans? Is the criticism directed at the Wallabies for a lack of try scoring valid?
And remember: ‘Statistics can be used to prove anything. Including the truth’. (Anonymous)
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- SPIRO: ‘Captain Magic’ Quade Cooper goes down with all flags flying (333)
- Deans confirms no spot for Quade Cooper (281)
- SPIRO’s Lions Diary: Foley does Australian rugby a disservice (261)
- Want to beat the Lions? Pick Quade Cooper (229)
- Don’t blame Foley, blame the ARU (224)
- SPIRO: All Blacks learning to live without Carter (218)
- Wallabies’ six worst-kept secrets confirmed (204)
- Digby in the clear to meet Lions (50)
- Christian ready for the Lions (46)
- These British and Irish Lions are different (42)
- Peter Kimlin talks Wallabies, Lions, and Brumbies (27)
- Robbie Deans can learn from those Randwick Greens (9)
- What the Lions match told us about the Waratahs (18)
- Barnes looms as super-sub vs Lions (17)
- These British and Irish Lions are different (42)
- Robbie Deans can learn from those Randwick Greens (9)
- What the Lions match told us about the Waratahs (18)
- Lessons learnt from the Lions beating the Waratahs (51)
- Lions and All Blacks: the cream rises to the top (54)
- Springboks need to smarten up (37)
- Deans under pressure, but Gatland’s Lions aren’t roaring just yet (12)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- All Blacks, robbie deans, Rugby Union, wallabies

July 26th 2012 @ 1:23am
biltongbek said | July 26th 2012 @ 1:23am | Report comment
Werewolf, mate using these stats doesn’t show a clear picture.
To show the fallicy of these stats.
Jake White during his tenure scored 18 tries in 11 tests vs Australia, Yet won 6/11, With a nett score of -44
Pieter de Villiers during his tenure scored 27 tries in 12 tests vs Australia, yet only won 4/12, with a net score of -2
Totally decieving, ain’t it?
July 26th 2012 @ 2:26am
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:26am | Report comment
No its not deceiving. This is the 3rd article and this one happens to be on tries scored against the two other tri nations sides. (I discussed his win ration against SA in the 1st article. Deans has won 2 out of 3 matches against south africa.)
July 26th 2012 @ 2:40am
biltongbek said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:40am | Report comment
What I am trying to show you is tries scored doesn’t necessarily equate to success, JW had a superior win ratio against Australia even though he scored only 1.66 tries per match against them,but his coaching allowed for more structure, better organised defences and better discipline in executing his game plan.
Where as PDV with the same players, scored more tries ( incidentally 8 of those tries came in one match which totally deflates the actual statistic) but his players were poorly coahed and hence their defesive discipline, organisation and execution were much poorer.
The proof of the pudding is in the way JW has taken a bunch of unknowns at the Brumbies to play structured and organised rugby which almost made the play offs was it not for a disappointing last match vs the Blies.
I am not trying to take away anything from Deans as coach, however, in context you need to look at what happened to the opposition team as well.
In the last 2 years of PDV tenure, he lost 50% of his matches, our figures against NZ of 5/11 was purely because in 2009 we beat then 3-0 because Graham Henry was intent on running at us from everywhere, the tackle law at the breakdown, Heinrich zbrussow and Morne Steyn won us that series, there after it has been dismal.
July 26th 2012 @ 4:35am
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 4:35am | Report comment
My article merely points out that australia is scoring a certain number of tries against their two biggest rivals and they are healthy averages in context.
But I do think it is implied that try scoring does relate to success in some way (i don’t think this is exactly a eureka moment) so allow me to retort.
You make the point that you don’t have to be scoring many tries to win. That I agree and i did not say otherwise. 1.6 tries can be healthy enough to beat the wallabies 55% of the time it seems just like as i pointed out 2.0 tries against the all blacks is enough it seems to beat them 56% of the time.
Again i must come back to the fact that this particular article merely points out the figures. the Wallabie are scoring a healthy amount of tries against South Agrica and to alesser extent against the All Blacks.
You suggested in your post that try scoring doesn’t equate to success. I beg to differ.
Jake whites record of try scoring does not prove a trend in the test match arena i don’t think. Its an example of your theory and therefore its good evidence of your theory. But I think there is much mote evidence to suggest you are in general wrong if you think try scoring doesn’t usually bring success. Try scoring is massively important to be successful.
eg Only 4% of all world cup matches in history have ever been won by a side scoring fewer tries. Most points as I’ve pointed out come from tries as well. So try scoring is important.
If you take the try scoring averages of the six and tri nations sides they are ranked as follows in try scoring since 2007. Averages in brackets.
1. New Zealand (3.7)
2. Australia (2.8)
3. South Africa (2.6)
4. Wales/Ireland (2.2)
6. France (2.1)
7. England (1.9)
8. Italy (1.2)
9. Scotland (1.0)
It would be hard to argue that this is not basically, give or take, the ranking order of these sides successes these past 4 and a half years. Particularly the top 3 being stand outs, the next four being around about the same and the next two being by far the worst of the lot.
Thats not to say on given days any side could not beat the other but in general try scoring stats are a good indicator of how things are going. The corresponding figure of jake Whites 04-07 boks was 3.6 tries per match. That’s a lot of tries!
July 26th 2012 @ 5:25am
Ben S said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:25am | Report comment
Why 2007? The law changes in 2009 are pretty relevant I imagine.
Pretty sure that Wales and Ireland wouldn’t be ahead of France and England in terms of success since 2007.
July 26th 2012 @ 7:08am
BD said | July 26th 2012 @ 7:08am | Report comment
are you kidding?
Wales has only wn 2 grand slams in that time and Ireland has won one along with France. England have won a 6 nations but not a grand slam.
July 26th 2012 @ 9:21am
Ben S said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Am I kidding? No. England reached the WC final in 2007, they have won away in Australia, beaten Australia at home by a record score, drawn in SA and won a 6N championship. Pretty sure that trumps the others apart from France.
July 26th 2012 @ 11:53am
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 11:53am | Report comment
2010 is pretty key year for counting Wallabies tries as well. Number of tries was really lifting under Deans culminating in the high veldt victory over the Boks and the demolition of France.
Since 2011 and so far this year the centres have largely been drawn from McCabe, Faingaa, Horne and Ashley-Cooper. Since these four have filled the centre spots the involvement of the back three Ioane, O’Connor and Beale has dropped off massively.
I suspect that if the try scoring stats under Deans was split to look at up to 2010 and from 2011 onwards that the pre-number would be even higher and the current period number would be quite low.
July 26th 2012 @ 12:04pm
Jutsie said | July 26th 2012 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
Jez in addition we should also look at the tries scored against stats for the 2010 and post 2010 period because I recall alot of criticism thrown at the wallabies during the 2010 period about their small backline and leaky defence.
I believe this coupled with barnes having the concussion issues leading into the WC led to mccabe being trialled at 12.
In hindsight Deans could’ve taken a punt on tapuai last year, there is a high risk involved trying out a bloke who has had limited super rugby experience (at that stage tapuai had only cemented a starting spot when harris got injured about 3/4 of the way through the season) however there is also a high risk involved playing a wing/fullback at 12 in a important test match when he has little experience in the position at anyother level.
But I am still a mccabe fan, he has done everything asked of him in defence and has shown at super level this year that he is capable of using his outside backs. I think the problem is not only the centres but also the commitment/fitness of other wallaby players.
It is hard to give an offload/pop pass if there is no support runners.
July 26th 2012 @ 12:23pm
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
good call Jutsie, I definitely think our defence has tightened up since the change was made. We may have been scoring many more tries but they were certainly letting lots in during that 2010 season.
I think OJ has provided the most pertinent try scoring stats below where he looks at both tries scored and conceded.
July 26th 2012 @ 12:33pm
Jutsie said | July 26th 2012 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Yeah I think OJ’s trys for vs try against ratio is a better indicator however like you i think it would be good to get a comparision of the deans era before 2011 and the 2011-2012 seasons.
I think OJ has provided stats for the entire deans era vs the jones/connolly era
July 26th 2012 @ 2:20pm
ohtani's jacket said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:20pm | Report comment
The Wallabies’ try scoring ratio from 2008-10 was 3:2 and the ratio from 2011-12 is 3:1.
July 26th 2012 @ 2:24pm
Jutsie said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
Thanks OJ, so just to be clear is it tries for : Tries against?
So in actual fact there has been an improvement in the last year and a bit?
Or is it the other way around and the new centre combination has reduced the tries for but had little effect on the tries against?
July 26th 2012 @ 2:37pm
ohtani's jacket said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
It’s tries for and against.
The 2011-12 figures are somewhat skewered by the 21 tries scored against the United States and Russia in the World Cup. Excluding those two games, the ratio would be 2:1.
July 26th 2012 @ 2:44pm
Jutsie said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:44pm | Report comment
Yeah that makes sense, I thought it seemed a bit generous for the 2011-12 period but if you take out the USA/Russia figures it does paint a very accurate reflection of the attack v defence performance of the team in the 2 periods.
Even without looking at stats you could tell in the last year the defensive structures of the team has improved although, they have a few issues in the corridors either side of the breakdown.
However they are in desperate need of a creative spark in the backline. If guys like O’connor, beale, mitchell and cooper regain form/fitness they will provide this but that may also result in the defence being weakened again.
July 26th 2012 @ 5:39pm
ohtani's jacket said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
Here are the year by year figures. The figures in brackets are the actual number of tries.
2008 — 2:2 (33:32)
2009 — 2:1 (29:15)
2010 — 3:2 (49:33)
2011 — 3:2 (44:20)
2012 — 1:1 (5-4)
July 26th 2012 @ 5:53pm
Jutsie said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:53pm | Report comment
Is the 2011 actual tries number incorporating the US/Russia games, cos I was about to say the improvement from 2010 to 2011 was remarkable as tries for dropped by 5 but tries against dropped by 13 however I then realised it wouldn’t be so great if the stats included those games.
Also where did u get these stats? I could probably look em up myself instead of asking more and more follow up questions
July 26th 2012 @ 9:32pm
ohtani's jacket said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
http://www.pickandgo.info/
You can use the search engine to find the try stats. The 2011 stats I listed did include the World Cup games.
July 26th 2012 @ 11:29pm
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 11:29pm | Report comment
OJ – that is damning then in 2011 23:16, once you discount the 21:4 in USA/Russia matches.
Really demonstrates the vastly superior attack but weaker defence demonstrated in 2010.
I definitely want to see more of the 2010 style of play rather than the more recent efforts.
July 27th 2012 @ 9:35am
Jutsie said | July 27th 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Just a correction to your ratio calcs OJ I did a quick calc of the 2011 ratio based on the tries and if u include the russia and USA games the ratio is actually 2:1 (slightly better actually) and just a little under 3:2 without those games.
So basically the attack deteriorated at the same rate the defence improved from 2010 to 2011.
Other interesting point is that:
-in 2012 the ratio is exactly the same as in Dean’s first year (so far) so he’s gone full circle, but lets see how the RC pans out
-2009 was his best year in relation to tries for vs tries against however it was his worst year results wise.
Conclusion: Stats dont paint the full picture
July 26th 2012 @ 6:52am
Thurl said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:52am | Report comment
” WW you say in response to biltongbek “You suggested in your post that try scoring doesn’t equate to success. I beg to differ.”
If Deans is scoring more tries than previous Wallaby coaches, particularly against the All Blacks, but is less successful, particularly against the All Blacks, then I would have to beg to differ with your begging to differ.
And I’m not sure if stats exist purely to disguise problems. Your stats paint a rosier picture for Deans, but is the picture that rosy really. I think that there is one stat that you haven’t mentioned that would probably be the most revealing when judging any progress that Deans may or may not have had with the Wallabies. And that stat would be the measure of consistency. Whats the incidence of back to back wins against top tier nations.
I’d be interested to know as a point of balance, just how many tries deans’ Wallabies have conceded compared to previous years
July 26th 2012 @ 11:04am
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 11:04am | Report comment
WW, isn’t the crux of the issue in this statement of yours?
“eg Only 4% of all world cup matches in history have ever been won by a side scoring fewer tries.”
Means the number of tries scored is meaningless with out knowing how many the side has been conceding as well.
July 26th 2012 @ 4:47pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
Have some patience roarers this is the 3rd part of the series of many.
1. Deans win ratio is above average over all, the best ever against SA, above average against the 5 nations and poor against NZ.
2. His overall try scoring is quite good ie 2nd in the world in the corresponding period and historically high but less than the wallabies professional average.
3. His try scoring rates are excellent against SA and good against NZ from both an historic perspective and a current one.
there will be more to come….
July 26th 2012 @ 6:00pm
Justin2 said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
WW – as I have posted before, this isnt an analysis of Deans as a coach though. You are merely putting together stats of the Wallabies with Deans at the helm.
There is a difference…
July 26th 2012 @ 6:22pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:22pm | Report comment
Justin they are contextual analysis.
Most Deans’ Wallabies critics I read are always stating we don’t win enough games nor score enough tries.
these articles thus far are in response to that. This is big picture stuff.
July 26th 2012 @ 5:36pm
ohtani's jacket said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
July 26th 2012 @ 4:50am
biltongbek said | July 26th 2012 @ 4:50am | Report comment
Werewolf, all I am saying, tries in isolation doesn’t tell the whole story.
July 26th 2012 @ 5:00am
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:00am | Report comment
100% agree with you there. Doesn’t mean they are not important and its hard to write an article about Deans try scoring rates without talking a lot about try scoring rates.
Many Wallaby fans have after all been very critical of the try scoring rate of the Wallabies lately.
July 26th 2012 @ 8:01am
Justin2 said | July 26th 2012 @ 8:01am | Report comment
Correct – Wallabies scored 5-4 tries v Wales in the 3 match series at home, hardly scintillating. No innovation and little ball movement, rugby league if you will. At least McGahan seems to have taken the bit by his teeth with his use of the bench since joining the coaching box. Appears he understands you need 22 players not 15 to win Test matches.
July 26th 2012 @ 6:48am
Red Kev said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:48am | Report comment
I would go further and say that tries scored as a stand alone stat is roughly as relevant as posting the average height of the backs.
You can’t say the Deans Wallabies score more tries than anyone else against the All Blacks as if it proves anything. Especially not if by comparison they also let in twice the number of tries they score.
If you want to harp on about how games are won by scoring more tries, it is irrelevant if Deans’ Wallabies have increased their scoring rate marginally against the All Blacks if they have at the same time increased their rate of tries conceded.
From memory (a press article before the RWC last year) Deans has the worst defensive record of any Wallaby coach in the professional era – I’m happy for you to investigate that and prove it wrong if you want to. But considering this is, as you yourself have posted several times, an era when defenses are a stronger part of the game, it would seem to be a significant problem.
July 26th 2012 @ 9:26am
fin said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:26am | Report comment
That makes our 3-0 win against Wales even more impressive. How tall is their scrum half, much taller than Will. Plus Barnes and McCabe aren’t real tall and they had that really tall winger. Although their full back is really short, that’s one up for us. Thankfully JOC was injured or we would have been really screwed. Now we know why Deans uses a 5/2 bench,so he can use Samo on the wing to improve our stats, plus Higgers he spends most of the game on the wing- surely that counts.
July 26th 2012 @ 6:42pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:42pm | Report comment
Would you be saying that try scoring rats are meaningless if Deans’ try scoring rate was much lower?
July 26th 2012 @ 9:39pm
Red Kev said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:39pm | Report comment
If you bothered to read the post rather than just disagreeing you’d see that I say that tries scored is irrelevant as a stat by itself.
If Deans’ Wallabies scored 1.4 tries a match but only let in 0.6 that would be awesome.
If Deans’ Wallabies are scoring 2.2 tries a match but conceding 2.8 then that’s crap.
July 26th 2012 @ 9:43pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
The article is about try scoring rates against SA and NZ compared to yester-year and compared with other test nations in the same period. if you’d bothered to read the article.
If someone had researched and found that Deans was scoring far below these rates you’d be crowing.
i’ll write an article on try conceding don’t you worry. Deans is not above criticism. But he is also not getting his fair share of credit.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:01pm
Red Kev said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:01pm | Report comment
And scoring rates are irrelevant.
If that is what your article is about would it make you feel better to tell you that your article and all the time you spent researching it is a complete and utter waste of time and space and that most people who read it will be worse off for the experience?
Of course it won’t, that’s mean, instead I’m trying to help you to understand that your basic premise (that your stats are meaningful) is incorrect and help you come to a better understanding of what you should do in the future.
You need to post Wallaby scoring rates against the ABs and contrast them with ABs scoring rates against the Wallabies. Either in isolation is completely useless. Statistics are comparative tools, not absolute truth (or proof).
But you don’t want to hear that, you just want to be right. Shame you’re not.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:09pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:09pm | Report comment
That is my intention to do so. This one is just about the try scoring against the 2 sides as i’ve said and is is clear to anyone that would read the article.
My advice is to read the thoughts of others that wish to be heard and try and respond to that articles premise. Not your own agenda.
You have not talked about the try scoring rates in any thread only to say all of a sudden the ability to score tries is now convenient;y irrelevant. Akin to an ostrich burying its head in the sand at the sight of danger.
Give the wallabies some credit from time to time fella!
July 26th 2012 @ 4:58am
BD said | July 26th 2012 @ 4:58am | Report comment
One thing I’ve come to know about Deans is nothing is ever good enough.
If this article showed Deans not scoring as many tries most would be ‘outraged’. If it shows that he is scoring a decent amount of tries then ‘tries don’t mean anything’
We beat wales three game sin a row but ‘we didn’t score enough tries’.
We are but petulant children.
July 26th 2012 @ 5:21am
biltongbek said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:21am | Report comment
I was just watching Re-Union and Richard Loe was asked whether he thought the Crusaders vs Bulls game was entertaining.
His answer was, yes for a true rugby lover there is more important than “airy fairy” rugby.
I fully agree with him.
July 26th 2012 @ 6:24am
BD said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:24am | Report comment
Biltong the best two games i’ve seen were the 99 world cup semi between Wallabies and the Boks which had no tries and the 99 world cup semi between NZ and the frogs which had more tires than i can remember.
Rugby is to be enjoyed when both sides play well and when it is an even contest. Tries can be irrelevant. I even enjoyed the recent loss to scotland. not the rsult the pick and go ant the tackling were from a purists point of view just fantastic. You may be able to tell i was once a prop! But i’d never say at the beginning of the match I don’ t want to see a bunch of tries.
BS I’m not sure whether you are agreeing with me or not but I think the criticism of the mid field is exactly what is wrong with most fans. They were actually brilliant. They scored the bulk of the tries. 3 out of 5 i think.
But many have an anti deans agenda particularly queenslanders that want only reds players like Faingaa. That i can understand he’s brilliant as well. but it makes me laugh because he is not an attacking option either. Or they want a pygmy like O’connor or Barnes in the mid field. Of course that would be a HUGE mistake.
July 26th 2012 @ 6:36am
biltongbek said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:36am | Report comment
BD you’re talking my language mate, I was a loose head prop myself many moons ago, not as big as these boyse in the modern era, my fighting weight was a mere 92 kg.
July 26th 2012 @ 7:38am
BD said | July 26th 2012 @ 7:38am | Report comment
haha the game has changed no!
i was never more than 100kg. Today i’d be laughed at.
July 26th 2012 @ 7:59am
biltongbek said | July 26th 2012 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Yeah, if i had any pace whatsoever I might make halfback.
July 26th 2012 @ 9:32am
Ben S said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:32am | Report comment
‘BS I’m not sure whether you are agreeing with me or not but I think the criticism of the mid field is exactly what is wrong with most fans. They were actually brilliant. They scored the bulk of the tries. 3 out of 5 i think.’
Do you know who was brilliant? Frank Bunce. He was brilliant. McCabe and Horne were not brilliant.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:20am
Justin2 said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:20am | Report comment
“They were actually brilliant.”
That is one of the more extraordinary statements I have ever seen on the Roar and I have seen a few.
July 26th 2012 @ 11:18am
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 11:18am | Report comment
BD – I’m a prop as well and I enjoyed that Scotland game too!
Calling the Wallaby midfield brilliant is a bit excessive though, Horne butchered a try in the first test and nearly butchered a second in the third test. Both times he had an unmarked man outside him.
I counted in one game that he never passed the ball once, in the same game McCabe passed the ball twice (one of those as acting halfback). The two of them did exactly zero to bring the outside backs into the game. Their defence was solid but they stifled the attack.
That is my case for the negative, please tell me why you think they were brilliant? Are you talking about their three tries?
Try 1. McCabes line running off Genia for his try in the first test was excellent.
Try 2. Horne’s try backing up Barnes on the break was competent.
Try 3. Horne’s try where he was losing the ball in the tackle going himself while he had an unmarked man outside him was poor, he should have been able to draw the defender and send his winger over untouched. So although he scored I rate it below average.
Have to include here the try that should have been scored when Horne went himself, ran across field into space and failed to pass to the unmarked man outside him – absolutely criminal.
July 26th 2012 @ 5:26am
Ben S said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:26am | Report comment
From what I’ve read on the Roar re the Wales games, it wasn’t the lack of tries that was the issue, more the structure and finesse of the backplay, specifically the midfield.
July 26th 2012 @ 4:50pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
This BD is the best post I’ve read on this article.
Exactly right.
July 26th 2012 @ 7:54am
Justin2 said | July 26th 2012 @ 7:54am | Report comment
This series of articles is more about the Wallaby performance than Deans. There is actually little analysis of Deans coaching per se, just results and numerous poor ones seemingly glossed over.
It’s difficult to analyse his coaching for each match now looking back but the glaring mistakes have been pointed out time and again.
July 26th 2012 @ 8:06am
Snobby Deans said | July 26th 2012 @ 8:06am | Report comment
The only stat that matters is winning. The All Blacks lost all three testst against the Boks in 09.
For arguments sake, if they had scored an average of 6 tries in those tests vs an historical average of 1.x, do you think anyone would care? It’s about winning. We all like to see tries scored, but I’d take no tries and a win over 2, 3, 4 tries and a loss.
I understand what you were trying to say, I’m just not sure that analysing stats paints an accurate picture
July 26th 2012 @ 8:18am
ohtani's jacket said | July 26th 2012 @ 8:18am | Report comment
How can you have 1.5 of a try or 1.8? It seems you round things up when it suits you.
The Wallabies averaged around 2 tries a game against the All Blacks from 2004-07 and 2 tries a game against them from 2008-11. Tellingly, they went from conceding 2 tries per game against the All Blacks to 3 tries per game under Deans, an accurate reflection of the defensive problems seen during Robbie’s reign. The try scoring ratio against South Africa hasn’t changed — 3:2 for both eras.
Also telling is that the Wallabies from 2004-07 averaged 4 tries per match overall, a figure which fell to 3 tries per game during 2008-11. In fact, the Wallabies scored 30 less tries under Deans than Jones and Connolly despite playing 6 more matches.
July 26th 2012 @ 8:27am
Sam Taulelei said | July 26th 2012 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Thanks OJ, that’s what I thought as well from a different thread a while ago where we debated this topic.
July 26th 2012 @ 11:47am
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 11:47am | Report comment
cheers OJ – much more telling stats.
July 26th 2012 @ 9:40pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
Yes much more convenient. Forgetting of course that they’re ridiculous fabrications.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:32pm
ohtani's jacket said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:32pm | Report comment
You’re trying to argue that an increase from 1.5 tries per match to 1.8 tries per match offsets:
a) a tries against increase of 2.1 to 2.6
b) an increase in points difference from -75 to -125
c) a decrease in winning percentage from 22.2% to 20%
and d) a decrease in home winning percentage from 50% to 33.3%
Six more bites at the cherry and all Deans could come up with was .3 more tries per match.
July 26th 2012 @ 11:33pm
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 11:33pm | Report comment
Werewolf I checked out the pick and go website that OJ pointed us to. If he is fabricating it is quite an elaborate hoax.
July 26th 2012 @ 11:40pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
the stats he has used ie rounding 1.5 tries and 1.8 tries to an even 2 tries are fabrications to the point that to publish them would’ve been irresponsible lies.. to say that they were better stats is also irresponsible and my opinion of you sir is at an all time low.
The ones above are try conceeding stats and win ratios. my article isn’t about that.
July 27th 2012 @ 12:14am
jeznez said | July 27th 2012 @ 12:14am | Report comment
wolfie, my comment regarding his stats being better was not on his level of accuracy – it was pretty obvious that he had rounded and I considered the numbers accordingly.
My comment that his stat is better was more to the point that looking at overall numbers of tries scored is a fairly meaningless stat – if you are interested in stats in relation to overall team performance. I can see from your comments that you aren’t trying to make arguments along those lines – you are just trying to make a point about number of tries scored.
I am interested in the stats in regard to how they relate to winning, in that context tries scored vs tries conceded is a much better indicator. Hence my comment that I thought they were better. Perhaps I should not have said better and should have said more interesting to me.
July 27th 2012 @ 9:47am
Jutsie said | July 27th 2012 @ 9:47am | Report comment
In the discussion above between jez, myself and OJ, OJ posted the tries for vs tries against ratio for each year of dean’s tenure.
I thought yesterday that this ratio would be a good indicator of success but after analysis OJ’s figures (and recalculating the incorrect ones) I found that these figures paint as murky a picture as WW’s as Deans’ best year in relation to tries for vs tries against was also his worst year results wise (2009).
Using tries as an indicator of success on the field is not wise as there are many other variables (in 2009 we had a woefully inaccurate goal kicker in giteau whereas the Saffa’s had steyn potting everything over).
However I understand that WW already analysed win/loss %’s in his previous piece and this article is addressing the feeling among some aussie fans that the wallabies under deans play an ugly brand of rugby.
Alot of the criticism’s about his articles are fair but an equal amount are also misguided as they dont address the underlying aim of the article.
July 26th 2012 @ 12:15pm
Carnivean said | July 26th 2012 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
WW provided accurate numbers, you used words like “around” with your numbers. Yet it is you that accuses him of fudging numbers for his argument?
Regardless of the rest of your post, you are in the wrong here.
July 26th 2012 @ 12:21pm
Jutsie said | July 26th 2012 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Agreed, considering the amount of games played by test teams each year there is a significant difference between 1.5 and 1.8 tries a game.
But agree that a tries for vs tries against ratio is a better overall indicator of success.
July 26th 2012 @ 8:43pm
Ben S said | July 26th 2012 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
How is he in the wrong?
July 27th 2012 @ 9:41am
Jutsie said | July 27th 2012 @ 9:41am | Report comment
because he is rounding average tries per period to whole numbers and claiming that is a better indicator?
I thought it was pretty obvious that this was what carnivean was saying.
When has any official statistical analysis (be it the RBA, ABS etc) used rounded numbers? The greater the volume of data the more accurate it is to use decimals, actually using even 1 decimal point could lead to wrong conclusions, 4-5 decimal points usually paint a better picture.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:26am
Gary Russell-Sharam said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:26am | Report comment
I see on some of these posts that Berrick Barnes is referred to as a pygmy meaning that he is quite small. The guy is a 180cm and nearly 90kg. Gee the last time I looked that is not the size of a Kalahari bushman. The same with JOC he is just under 180cm and approx 88kg. W\hat is it with you guys do we all have to be 2 metres tall and 120kg to play rugby at the highest level. I doubt if Daniel Carter is much bigger than Barnes and I’m sure that Aaren Cruden is smaller than JOC. That’s the problem with modern rugby everyone thinks that size is everything, the fans are the worst at this they push for bigger is better all the time. Bigger is not better all the time, You only have to look at the front row where props at 115kg are able to push around guys at 125 to 130kg. They use technique against size. While I readily admit that it is great to have a few big men in the side to do the bullocky work, skill and technique win hands down every time. There seems to be an obsession with size these days to the detriment of technical skill, I could cite examples but I’m sure there is a few posters out there with more time on their hands than me that will jump at this opportunity. Some of the posters that say these players are small should stand along side them ocassionally and then get a true picture of what size they are.
July 26th 2012 @ 12:02pm
rl said | July 26th 2012 @ 12:02pm | Report comment
Good point Gary – Dan Carter is 178cm and 94kgs. But if he turns out in the ABs no.12 jersey I don’t think it will signal the downfall of the empire. Similarly, one would think Sir Richie is too small to play no.8, but he seems to be making a reasonable fist of it, yes?
If only Stirling Mortlock or Dan Herbert were running at 13 for the Wallabies right now, we’d probably be talking about how brilliant our midfield was.
July 26th 2012 @ 12:35pm
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
I think McCabe moving out one is going to be the key to the Wallaby backline. He has proven he can run a hole with that try off Genia in the first Welsh test, he has started passing more this year – biggest change required will be to learn the defensive reads required at 13.
He could also do with adding a bit of subtlety to his running, rather than the straight at the man stuff he has become famous for (the less kind might say predictable).
I’d like to see 10. Cooper, 12. Barnes, 13. McCabe tried at some stage during this RC. Very tough that we have the AB’s first up and I’d be nervous of McCabe defensively making that change first up. Not sure that Horne has covered himself in glory this season for his defense at 13 either. Maybe it needs to be 10. Barnes, 12. Tapuai, 13. Faingaa?
There are definitely options out there – if the Welsh trio of 10. Barnes, 12. McCabe, 13. Horne is kept then we need to see a significant lift from 12 and 13 to bring the outside backs into the game.
July 26th 2012 @ 12:48pm
Jiggles said | July 26th 2012 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
I think its pretty evident that I am not the greatest fan of young Richard, but the thing I respect about him is that he does little to no weights training. I think that is a solid lesson to young rugby players that size is not the be all and end all. More important is focusing on skills and technique and doing your weights in moderation.
July 26th 2012 @ 1:44pm
Carnivean said | July 26th 2012 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
You think that Richie Mccaw got to 108kg doing little to no weights training?
If so, that almost as laughable as Spiro thinking Jonah Lomu got to his size via swimming alone.
July 26th 2012 @ 1:45pm
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
Tuck a sheep under each arm and run up the hill as a replacement for your weight training – sorry that was Meads.
Richie just used to tackle sheep on the farm to improve his defence.
July 26th 2012 @ 2:57pm
Kuruki said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
Richie has hit the weights hard this season. Imo he looks bigger and although some people say he has slowed down and on the downward, i think he has just been in a transitional phase of reinventing his game. he has become allot more physical. He may have lost some pace, but he is still doing a mountain of work and has been carrying very strongly lately.
July 26th 2012 @ 3:30pm
Carnivean said | July 26th 2012 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
He’s lot a ton of pace, not that he was ever the fastest player around. So much pace, that I think he’s got maybe 2 more years left in him at the top level. That said, it wouldn’t surprise me if he succeeds past that point.
July 27th 2012 @ 3:46pm
WorldwidePants(KOBW) said | July 27th 2012 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Kel Tremain used to tackle fence posts just to work up an appetite for lunch
July 26th 2012 @ 1:43pm
Gary Russell-Sharam said | July 26th 2012 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
Jeznez and Jiggles, words of wisdom from informed gentlemen. I would also like to see a backline of Cooper Barnes McCabe and if that was not the pick I would go for Barnes Taps McCabe, I wonder who they will pick for the wings IMO I think that Mitchell and Turner lack a bit of match fitness to be thrust into the test arena especially V the ABs. Ioane will be on one wing with AAC at fullback. I don’t think the Cooper Vuna covered himself with glory nor do I think that Tomane was the answer. So if I was Deans (lucky that I’m not) I would probably go for Mitchell as he has the most experience but I would not be that confident. Jeznez, I wonder that Greg Holmes is not in this squad even as a bench player he would be an asset IMO. yet Deans ignores him???? And dare I ask a question does anyone think that Shipperley at 183cm and 90+ kg is ready to be a Wallaby, I suppose the end of the year trip would be the right time???
July 26th 2012 @ 1:54pm
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
The non-selection of Greg Holmes for this training squad fills me with dismay. Maybe he is being rested along with the likes of Higgers and Genia but I doubt it.
I guess a little depends on Palmer and whether he will return from his ankle injury. Alexander can only be getting considered as a THP back up to Kepu (with additional THP cover from Ryan).
If they are looking at Robinson and Slipper for the LHP cover and think 5 props is enough then they are there but I think they are making a mistake. Holmes deserves a Wallabies shot at the 1 jumper.
July 26th 2012 @ 2:15pm
Red Kev said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Tomane is out for the season (not even end of year tour is likely is my understanding).
The wingers in contention for the spot opposite Ioane are Vuna, Mitchell, Turner, AAC, Foley, Cummins (and I guess McCabe although I doubt that Deans will move him from the midfield).
If I were Deans and feeling that my job were under pressure and needing a win in the Bledisloe to secure it I would gamble on Tapuai in the centres and Mitchell on the wing – they are the most talented backs available even if they are short of match fitness). If however I was Deans and feeling pretty secure that no matter what I’d be keeping the Wallabies gig until after the Lions tour I’d probably persist with my avowed favourites and run the same backline as I did against Wales – then when they lost I’d offer up the same excuse I had been for the last 5 years, that this was “a young group, learning and building, and that we’d take away good lessons from the loss” and sit back amazed at Australians’ guillibility at buying the crap I was shovelling.
July 26th 2012 @ 2:19pm
Carnivean said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:19pm | Report comment
It’s slanderous character assassinations like those that get you branded as a Deans-Hater.
Any coach picks the team that they think is mostly likely to get them the result they are after. Sometimes the goal is bigger than 1 game, where resting players becomes an issue, but apart from that, they pick the best combination.
July 26th 2012 @ 2:29pm
Red Kev said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
And anyone who can look at McCabe and Horne as the “best combination” available to the Australian midfield, or Cooper Vuna as the best available winger is a pathetically inept judge of rugby players.
July 26th 2012 @ 3:30pm
Justin2 said | July 26th 2012 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Yup, hard to argue with that.
Cooper and Taps are a must IMO. Barnes can sit a bench and be a very useful injury replacement.
July 26th 2012 @ 4:55pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 4:55pm | Report comment
RK
‘Only a Sith deals in absolutes’ Obeone.
(ironically this in itself is an absolute but you get my point.)
July 26th 2012 @ 6:03pm
Red Kev said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
That you can’t spell? It’s Obi-wan.
Or that you only like responses that support your point of view? See the above post in response to BD? You’re the one that can’t handle differing opinions regarding Deans.
July 26th 2012 @ 6:20pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:20pm | Report comment
sorry i can’t spell fictitious characters.
I respect some of your constructive viewpoints. I think you are on to something with Tapuia for instance and i wait with anticipation to see more of him. You are critical of Deans selections right?Were you critical when he gave Tapuia his debut test cap last year?
But i do not respect your negativity at times when it comes to the wallabies I love and to those that disagree with you.
My problem is that you simply revert to insulting intelligences when someone has an alternate view than your own. It is fairly narcissistic to think one must be the most intelligent because they have a certain opinion. RK you have a lot to offer and your opinions are valued (when they play the ball not the man) but it is clear we roarers are all equally…… unintelligent.
I liked BD’s comment because it was insightful to the modern wallaby fan that seems to be too negative and unrealstic on what the wallabies should be achieving. Nothing is ever good enough. It is true.
It isa travesty that we are not scoring enough tries nor winning enough matches. When it is pointed out that this is a bit of a myth it is something else that is a travesty and so on and so forth.
July 26th 2012 @ 9:45pm
Red Kev said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:45pm | Report comment
You post complete crap like “Only a Sith deals in absolutes” despite the fact that my statement was not an absolute and have the temerity to complain about me being negative?
I have learned after reading your posts on Fox Sports and GAGR and the Roar that by and large you are wrong most of the time, but that it is never worth the time to explain this to you. You simply refuse to listen to any contradictory viewpoints (case in point the end of this thread where you still cling to the absurd notion that Rocky Elsom was the right selection for blindside flanker in 2011). All you do is continue to post replies to people who express different viewpoints until everyone gets bored with you and stops reading. You refuse to let any comment that doesn’t agree with you stand unopposed and since you’ve have the last say you interpret this as you winning the argument.
I prefer just to poke fun at you. It amuses me.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:13pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
what was your comment
‘anyone who can look at McCabe and Horne as the “best combination” available to the Australian midfield, or Cooper Vuna as the best available winger is a pathetically inept judge of rugby players’
thats not absolutism.
i’d hate to hear you if you got opinionated.
July 26th 2012 @ 2:30pm
Red Kev said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
I also want to know if I record and post Deans’ post-Bledisloe loss press conference and those statements all come up if you’ll admid that I’m right. Never mind, pigs flying and all that.
July 26th 2012 @ 3:27pm
Carnivean said | July 26th 2012 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
The statements that Deans will or won’t make in the future are beside the point. You’ve directly stated that he picks player that he likes over players that are better for the job. You’re accusing him of being a crap shoveller who isn’t doing his job correct, but thinks he can get away with it by offering excuses.
You aren’t just saying that he doesn’t know what he is doing. You are slandering him as a person.
You can argue about the validity of his team selection all you want, without crossing the line. What you did was more, and worse than that.
That is why people around here have been labelling you as a Deans-Hater recently, which you have protested.
July 26th 2012 @ 3:32pm
Justin2 said | July 26th 2012 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
Would you like some tissues? Please, Deans has shown on more times than I care to remember that he is not a good selector. In fact I would say he is quite average.
July 26th 2012 @ 3:38pm
Carnivean said | July 26th 2012 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Justin2, you have completely missed the point of what I said. I’m not sure how, as I laid it out quite clearly.
Let me point it out again: You can criticise his selections without crossing the line. You saying that he isn’t a good selector is subjective opinion, and you are free to express it. Saying Deans is intentionally making poor selections is slanderous.
July 26th 2012 @ 4:03pm
Red Kev said | July 26th 2012 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
No Carnivean you have completely missed the point.
Deans is “intentionally making poor selections”. The players he selects are those he intends to select. They are poor players. Therefore Deans is intentionally making poor selections.
You think I’d accused Deans of deliberately picking players that aren’t the best for the team. That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying Deans is too inept to realise who the best players are. That is why he’s selecting Horne and Vuna.
I am not saying Deans is “sabotaging” anything, I am saying Deans isn’t good enough to do the job of Wallaby selector.
July 26th 2012 @ 2:38pm
Dexter William said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
How many times was Dean Mumms picked by RD?
If Mumm is the best (“they pick the best combination”) RD we can offer, we might as well hope that our soccer team will win the World Cup and support that.
Like it or not, coaches make mistake with selection too often. But what is intolerable is continued selection mistake.
July 27th 2012 @ 10:15pm
Armchair Sportsfan said | July 27th 2012 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
now that did make me cuckle Red Kev….well played sir
July 26th 2012 @ 5:45pm
Jiggles said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:45pm | Report comment
Gary – I think the variation of the McCabe-Horne-Faingaa centres makes the back three redundant. We won’t win to many games if we can’t stretch the defense on the first phase or off a recycling phase. Having Barnes as a 10, who couldn’t organise in pretty easy conditions agains the Welsh is going to make it worse, in my opinion.
Cooper has to be at 10, and either Barnes or Tapuai at 12. McCabe hasn’t played 13, so I’d pick Faingaa and have McCabe as a sub who can play 12, 14/11 and 15.
I don’t understand how Turner is back in the frame. He is solid in defense and can kick, but he can’t score a try unless he is given a straight run to the line. Shipperly has shown his ability to beat the man in multiple situations to set up tries and score them. while I wouldn’t necessarily start him right now, he should be in the squad over Turner and he has the skills of a young Mitchell.
Holmes has been the best LHP this year in Australia with Robinson well below his best, which he hasn’t shown since 2009. If Palmer is injured as THP I would bring in Ryan, but I would probably start Kepu at THP. I wouldn’t bother with Alexander, but he will get the gig for sure. I’ve been watching a bit of Cowan lately, and I think he has improved a lot this year. Jeznez mentioned him a few weeks ago I think.
July 26th 2012 @ 5:57pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
wow you don’t think Barnes did a good job against Wales? and the grand slam winning Welsh were easy?
jeesh
July 26th 2012 @ 6:29pm
Jiggles said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
I think the way he lead the team around the park left a lot to be desired.
July 26th 2012 @ 7:24pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
Apart from that he helped guide the wallabies to three glorious test match victories against a quality opposition of course.
July 26th 2012 @ 8:07pm
Ben S said | July 26th 2012 @ 8:07pm | Report comment
Three glorious test match victories… Final nail in the coffin right there.
July 26th 2012 @ 9:16pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 9:16pm | Report comment
only an aussie deans hater would be so offended by that statement. final nail in the coffin right there murph.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:16pm
Ben S said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
First point is that you keep calling me an ‘aussie deans hater’. Simultaneously odd and inccorect. Second point is you keep saying the word ‘murph’, as if that’s meant to mean anything to me.
To describe those victories as glorious is absurdly hyperbolic to the point of naivety.
July 26th 2012 @ 2:49pm
tonysalerno said | July 26th 2012 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Best comment of the forum ” …tries in isolation doesn’t tell the whole story.” I would have posted this higher but i am struggling to get a word in with all the roaring debate fellas. A very good insight into Australia’s attack and proves they are building under the guidance of Robbie Deans.
July 26th 2012 @ 3:33pm
Justin2 said | July 26th 2012 @ 3:33pm | Report comment
After 5yrs Tony you would blurry well want to be. Frankly I dont think they are anyway.
July 26th 2012 @ 6:10pm
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
Tony, are they still building? Our defence tightened up last year but our attack went backwards at a rate of knots. In 2010 the backline were lethal, they let in too many tries but they scored plenty.
In 2011 and so far this year the Wallabies attack has been relatively impotent. In WW’s part 2 article he fed us the tidbit that Dean’s try scoring record against all comers averages at 2.8, above he notes against France and the home nations teams it is 2.3.
In the recent Welsh series played at home the team averaged 1.7 – I don’t think Wolfie has broken out the Wallabies tries up to 2010 compared to the tries since 2011 but just from watching the attack has fallen off a cliff.
July 26th 2012 @ 5:05pm
FraggleWrangler said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:05pm | Report comment
I’m all for constructive criticism of a coach when it’s warranted. However we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that a coach can only do so much with the material he has to work with.
Look at last year’s RWC match – Australia v New Zealand
If you were to go through the squads, number by number, how many Australians would you honestly choose over their NZ counterparts?
15 Adam Ashley Cooper v Israel Dagg
14 James O’Connor v Cory Jane
13 Anthony Fainga’a v Conrad Smith
12 Pat McCabe v Ma’a Nonu
11 Digby Ioane v Richard Kahui
10 Quade Cooper v Aaron Cruden
9 Will Genia v Piri Weepu
8 Radike Samo v Kieran Reed
7 David Pocock v Richie McCaw (capt)
6 Rocky Elsom v Jerome Kaino
5 James Horwill (capt) v Brad Thorn
4 Dan Vickerman v Sam Whitelock
3 Ben Alexander v Owen Franks
2 Stephen Moore v Keven Mealamu
1 Sekope Kepu v Tony Woodcock
Honestly, even with my Aussie bias, I can’t envisage many green and gold socks in an ANZAC combined side. Even Cooper would only get in because Dan Carter was injured.
The situation hasn’t changed since Deans took over. We had the great George Smith in Deans’ first year at the helm, but Smith was near the end of his career and up against McCaw in his prime. In that first year I can’t realistically think of any Australians I’d pick over their opposite number.
July 26th 2012 @ 5:17pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:17pm | Report comment
Interesting comment.
On last years form I’d have the aussie wingers, scrum half, open side (controversial I know but Pocock was the better player last year) and hooker. Thats only a 3rd of the side IMHO.
I think the Wallabies get too much criticism particularly since Deans took over. I am saddened because so far my stats show they are doing excellent, exceptional things except against the mighty All Blacks under Deans (and strangely Scotland). Thats because they are to be blunt a lot better (not Scotland of course). i have high hopes for the next 4 years though (even against Scotland).
July 26th 2012 @ 5:28pm
Jerry said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
No way does Zack Morris get in ahead of Jane based on last year’s form. Or Moore over Mealamu, IMO.
July 26th 2012 @ 5:36pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
haha yes they do! Mealamu was a shadow of his former self and jane only just forced his way into the all blacks team whereas JOC was a certainty. Besides I’d have AAC before both of them and if Beale was playing i’d have Beale at fullback and Dagg on the wing.
I’d forgotten in that game that Beale was injured. Another huge blow for the Wallabies. The all blacks can afford injuries to key players, even Carter. The wallabies can not afford their marquee players to ever be injured. Imagine if Genia was injured. imagine if Pocock was injured. No need think ireland.
July 26th 2012 @ 7:21pm
Jerry said | July 26th 2012 @ 7:21pm | Report comment
Mealamu was one of the best ball runners the AB’s had last year – you obviously weren’t paying attention.
And leaving aside the certainty/just forced in argument (cause it’s stupid, they play for different teams), regardless of how he got there, Jane was on fire for the AB’s last year. JOC was ok.
July 26th 2012 @ 7:47pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
No he wasn’t. he received a lot of criticism for perhaps being apst it and this season it clearly has also been the case.
Jane was awful until the last few games of the RWC.
July 26th 2012 @ 8:02pm
Jerry said | July 26th 2012 @ 8:02pm | Report comment
You weren’t watching then – here’s some of Mealamu’s stats.
RWC Semi-Final – 11 carries, 42 metres (number 1 in category)
http://www.haka.co.nz/haka-column.php?story_id=836&locations=ab_general
1/4 Final – 11 carries, 36 metres (4th)
http://www.haka.co.nz/haka-column.php?story_id=833&locations=ab_super_npc_general
French Pool match – 5 carries, 25 metres (5th )
http://www.haka.co.nz/haka-column.php?story_id=824&locations=ab_super_npc_general
Tri-Nations vs Aus (Brisbane), 14 carries, 55 metres (1st)
http://www.haka.co.nz/haka-column.php?story_id=804&locations=ab_super_npc_general
etc etc
If Jane was so awful, why did he keep his place in the side after coming in as injury cover? You’re talking rubbish man, give it up.
July 26th 2012 @ 10:49pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 10:49pm | Report comment
Moore was better last year.
July 26th 2012 @ 11:39pm
jeznez said | July 26th 2012 @ 11:39pm | Report comment
Jerry, sorry your stats are irrellevant. Its only WW’s stats that are able to be used to make points!
July 26th 2012 @ 11:47pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 11:47pm | Report comment
no these are random occasions when mealamu carried between 25 to 55 metres in some matches last year. Hardly a compelling argument. a) thats not very good and b) because we have no stats to compare with Moore. Not that running metres are all that decide which player had the better season. you’d have to write a string of articles to compare all the stats. hmmm where have i seen that going on recently? hmmm
July 27th 2012 @ 6:51am
Jerry said | July 27th 2012 @ 6:51am | Report comment
Werewolf – I picked out those matches cause they were the bigger matches the AB’s played last year (unfortunately, haka.co.nz doesn’t have the stats for the RWC final which is odd). If you want, I can put up more stats, but I thought how he performed in the big matches was more relevant than how he performed against Tonga or Canada.
I posted those stats, not as a comparison to Moore, but to refute your statement “No, he wasn’t” which was in response to my statement that Mealamu was one of the AB’s best ball runners. And seeing as he was in the top few, if not the top, runners in their big matches, I think I can safely say “Yes, he was”.
It’s plain to me that you’re basing your comparison on a flawed recollection of Mealamu’s form last year.
July 27th 2012 @ 6:58am
Jerry said | July 27th 2012 @ 6:58am | Report comment
Oh, and you’re simply being ignorant to say “25 to 55 metres isn’t very good”.
Here’s the stats for the Wallabies recent series vs Wales.
http://www.rugbystats.com.au/matches/rugby/match16749.html
http://www.rugbystats.com.au/matches/rugby/match16746.html
http://www.rugbystats.com.au/matches/rugby/match16732.html
55 metres running is higher than any forward in either team managed for the entire series.
Have a look http://www.rugbystats.com.au/rugby/index.html?refresh=1342817804745
July 27th 2012 @ 7:27pm
The Werewolf said | July 27th 2012 @ 7:27pm | Report comment
55metres is good.
but IMHO anything under 50m is not an influential performance.
palu for instance this year in super rugby normally carries well over 50 often as much as 100metres in some games.
Moore is also normally a great ball carrier and IMHO he was better than mealamu last year. i’m not alone.
July 28th 2012 @ 6:10am
Jerry said | July 28th 2012 @ 6:10am | Report comment
I don’t really have a problem with you thinking Moore was better – I disagree, but I understand. But it’s alright to admit that you were wrong about Mealamu being a shadow of his former self…..
July 26th 2012 @ 5:30pm
Justin2 said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:30pm | Report comment
I was going to comment but I wont
July 26th 2012 @ 5:56pm
FraggleWrangler said | July 26th 2012 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
I’d agree with you on the wingers and possibly the open half, maybe not on the hooker or scrum half (controversial I know)
My main point is that I’d probably pick more more wallabies now than when Deans took over – so we have improved – but the number of Australians picked would still be no where near the number of Kiwis. We just don’t have the depth of talent, or the serious player numbers.
July 26th 2012 @ 6:02pm
The Werewolf said | July 26th 2012 @ 6:02pm | Report comment
Agree about our lack of depth. We can not afford injuries.
No Genia? wow. actually on world cup form fair enough but overall 2011? I suppose Cooper might’ve got the nod ahead of Cruden on 2011 form as well but i just like Cruden a lot more than Cooper as a player and as a young man.
I stand by 2011 Moore was better than 2011 Mealamu.